ACA sign-ups zooming....

[zzigzzag]

Do you actually know a Republican that likes the ER system? Seems made up.

I wasn't aware the ER gave a full gammit of followup visits. My neighbor who had no insurance went to ER after sticking his finger in a snowblower. ER bill they gave him was $4,500 and he was in and out in 2 hours. And had zero followup visits and never paid a dime as he hasn't worked in the 16 years I've known him.

He did tell me once he entered into a demolition derby on a motorcycle.

One of the craziest things I have ever heard.

Do the pugs have an alternative to ACA besides the status quo? Is it a secret? Until they roll it out, they are obviously championing the ER system over ACA.

 

[SW48]

Name a Democrat who said that it "ruined the economy". Paste it. I don't believe you. Anyone will do....from politician to PJ poster. One.

I have mentioned the $24 billion Boehner donated to the baggers many times. Typically, in response to someone who was hyperventilating about the few hundred million it took to fix the website. Y'all just blew off that $24 billion that pugs flushed down the toilet as if it never happened. Not a single sincere complaint. No anger whatsoever. Many said it was "worth it".

Any thread about the government shutdown here on pj had bugsy and many others saying the shutdown sabotaged the economy. The president came on national tv and said the shutdown undermined 4th quarter economic growth.

I simply used it as an example that some thing 20 billion is a big deal. No biggy, carry on.

 

[SW48]

Do the pugs have an alternative to ACA besides the status quo? Is it a secret? Until they roll it out, they are obviously championing the ER system over ACA.

Your dodge is noted.

I couldn't care less about the alternative. Those days are over. 7 million new insureds under ACA means you have to fix it, not repeal it.

You are still talking repeal apparently which can no longer happen.

 

[SW48]

Don't you just envy him? Not working and getting this incredible healthcare.actually I feel for the millions who have to wait in ERs for hours and hours burning up with fevers. I feel for the women who feel a lump in their breast but don't have access to mammograms because it is too expensive. I get more upset at the ridiculous costs of the ER, not the person who's "gettin something for nuthin". Were all paying for it. Wouldn't I be nice if women could get mammograms and prevent death? It's a luxury I take for granted. . I had so many students who couldn't see well because they didn't have glasses, kids who spent the nights in an ER when a drs visit would have sufficed.

Sounds good.

 

[Bluedog]

that's always a good question. Sometimes they vote their conscience and risk not bing re elected.

Renee, that's part of the problem. That's not representation. If the district tells u to vote a certain way, you should or step down.

IMHO

 

[fairsheet]

The 5 million that lost their insurance had to sign up for ACA. But only 1.8 million have signed up so far. What are you saying happened to the other 3.2 million plus? I don't understand your fairy tale.

The link was to a Forbes article not Fox and not the GOP. But your spin is noted.

Yah don't "sign up for ACA". SOME people sign up for plans being offered through the ACA exchanges. The rest sign up for new contracts that may nor may not be a part of the exchanges.

And what?......Forbes lie? Gimme a break. I'm not suggesting that his "math" is wrong. I'm suggesting that one'd be a fool to take his conclusions at face value.

 

[fairsheet]

Renee, that's part of the problem. That's not representation. If the district tells u to vote a certain way, you should or step down.

IMHO

I heartily disagree. How can you seriously suggest that no voting as your district wants you to, isn't "representation". If a candidate comes right out and says that he's not necessarily going to vote as his district wants him to, he won't be elected in the first place. So essentially, you're suggesting that he should lie to them in order to get elected.

That's not to suggest that the rare case might arise, where the representative bucks his constituency. But in the main, for him to presume to routinely substitute his feelings for those of his 750k (or so) constituents, is the polar opposite of democracy.

 

[Bluedog]

I heartily disagree. How can you seriously suggest that no voting as your district wants you to, isn't "representation". If a candidate comes right out and says that he's not necessarily going to vote as his district wants him to, he won't be elected in the first place. So essentially, you're suggesting that he should lie to them in order to get elected.

That's not to suggest that the rare case might arise, where the representative bucks his constituency. But in the main, for him to presume to routinely substitute his feelings for those of his 750k (or so) constituents, is the polar opposite of democracy.

Than he should not be elected in the first place as you correctly stated. Does a rep have a right to tell his district no? If a rep is against same sex marriage and his district is in support of same sex marriage, does the rep have the right to tell them "too bad". I believe he does not.

 

[SW48]

Yah don't "sign up for ACA". SOME people sign up for plans being offered through the ACA exchanges. The rest sign up for new contracts that may nor may not be a part of the exchanges.

And what?......Forbes lie? Gimme a break. I'm not suggesting that his "math" is wrong. I'm suggesting that one'd be a fool to take his conclusions at face value.

I'm not sure if this post was for me or not. I am the one that posted the Forbes link which I thought had accurate information. Maybe it didn't, there is no way to know.

 

[fairsheet]

Than he should not be elected in the first place as you correctly stated. Does a rep have a right to tell his district no?

Of course he has a "right" to say no. I'm just sayin' that the situation where he might routinely do so, is unrealistic. All this recent blah-blah-blah around the filibuster notwithstanding, the "majority" IS the foundation of democracy.

Now and again, we find ourselves in the minority on this question or that. It's not out of the question that our minority opinion is the "right" one. But....it's way too easy for us to assume that majority is stupid, corrupt, and unprincipled when what we should be doing is re-examining our own position.

 

[Bluedog]

Of course he has a "right" to say no. I'm just sayin' that the situation where he might routinely do so, is unrealistic. All this recent blah-blah-blah around the filibuster notwithstanding, the "majority" IS the foundation of democracy.

Now and again, we find ourselves in the minority on this question or that. It's not out of the question that our minority opinion is the "right" one. But....it's way too easy for us to assume that majority is stupid, corrupt, and unprincipled when what we should be doing is re-examining our own position.

Sorry, I edited my post.

 

[fairsheet]

I'm not sure if this post was for me or not. I am the one that posted the Forbes link which I thought had accurate information. Maybe it didn't, there is no way to know.

I allowed that the "information" was probably valid and correct. I'm disdainful of their conclusions. There IS a way of knowing whether or not their "information" is correct. That one's easy. And as to their conclusions?.....that one's not quite so easy, but not impossible by any stretch.

 

[fairsheet]

Than he should not be elected in the first place as you correctly stated. Does a rep have a right to tell his district no? If a rep is against same sex marriage and his district is in support of same sex marriage, does the rep have the right to tell them "too bad". I believe he does not.

It's complicated, isn't it? I remember back when Congress was considering Bush's "Iraq War Resolution". Quite a few Democrats voted "yeah". I was 100% opposed to going to war in Iraq, but I had no problem with those Democrats.

Many Democrats did, though. They suggested that those Democrats should've voted "no, "on principle", even IF it would mean that they'd not be reelected. Alas, the Republicans held the majority in both Congressional Houses. That one was going to pass, whether all or none of the Democrats voted "yeah". So, what "principle" would've been served by their making sacrificial lambs of themselves?

 

[SW48]

It's complicated, isn't it? I remember back when Congress was considering Bush's "Iraq War Resolution". Quite a few Democrats voted "yeah". I was 100% opposed to going to war in Iraq, but I had no problem with those Democrats.

Many Democrats did, though. They suggested that those Democrats should've voted "no, "on principle", even IF it would mean that they'd not be reelected. Alas, the Republicans held the majority in both Congressional Houses. That one was going to pass, whether all or none of the Democrats voted "yeah". So, what "principle" would've been served by their making sacrificial lambs of themselves?

You could use this logic on almost every bill voted on with one party or another.

I struggle mightily with what a politician says on camera and then what he votes on. And when you throw "pork" into a bill it gives them an "out" to explain or blame why they voted one way or another.

In the end it doesn't matter what a politician says to get elected or says about an issue, its what he voted on.

 

[fairsheet]

You could use this logic on almost every bill voted on with one party or another.

I struggle mightily with what a politician says on camera and then what he votes on. And when you throw "pork" into a bill it gives them an "out" to explain or blame why they voted one way or another.

In the end it doesn't matter what a politician says to get elected or says about an issue, its what he voted on.

We might be amazed at how many states and/or districts keep sending the same people back to Congress, specifically so they WILL bring home the pork! But, the "pork" issue has gotten so much attention over the last decade, that I don't think it's nearly the issue it once was.

Sometimes (imho), we toss the baby out with the bathwater. There IS a distinction (again imho) between "earmarks" and the more general "pork". And considered objectively and "in the light of day", I think we'd find that earmarks were actually a pretty efficient way of distributing the "change" left over from our more major appropriations.

 

[GordonGecko]

You could use this logic on almost every bill voted on with one party or another.

I struggle mightily with what a politician says on camera and then what he votes on. And when you throw "pork" into a bill it gives them an "out" to explain or blame why they voted one way or another.

In the end it doesn't matter what a politician says to get elected or says about an issue, its what he voted on.

That was Ron Paul's old dodge.....he'd rail against spending, even vote against spending bills, but made DAMN sure the bill would pass without his vote....

because there was money in the bill that was going back to his District in Texas.

The pork kept coming in....while Saint Ron bemoaned "pork barrel spending"....and kept his seat.